Re: Higer-order plot abstractions

["Laura J. Mixon" <ljm@digitalnoir.com>]

It is so interesting to me to see programmers at work getting a handle on
plot and "transcribing" it to interactive/calculable means.

For the past several posts, I have been aware that there is a context or
basis that Benja, Chris, and Walt have all been talking from in this
discussion of plot that I didn't fully understand:  a seeking of algorithmic
precision that is completely unnecessary for creating prose plots, and
therefore, while I understood the surface layer of your points -- or so I
thought -- I didn't have the foundations for understanding why it was so
important to you all to have this logical/algorithmic method of dealing with
plot.  In other words, I use different ways of thinking about the dynamic
you're trying to pin down, here -- talking about conflict and the power
struggles between characters in terms of X's, Y's, A's, and B's feels very
alien to me.

But I believe you're onto something really important.  It feels to me as if
you are shaping a fundamental principle of interactive plot with your
discussion:


on 12/1/01 3:47 PM, B. Fallenstein at b.fallenstein@gmx.de wrote:
>> It's clear to me that the two are related. Let's look at the basic "X
>> threatens to do A if Y does not do B" from the point of view of conflict.
>> There are two conflicts here. One conflict is the reason why X wants Y to do
>> B. Although its possible to think of counterexamples, in most cases this
>> conflict is something focused on X and is not, at the outset, a simple case
>> of X versus Y. The other is the conflict created for Y by X's demand; this
>> conflict might motivate Y to do B, or to kill X, or to make a counter-threat
>> to X, or to go to the police.
> 
> Right. Note that in the example, we not only have a higher-order event,
> but also a higher-order subplot that is the result of this event-- Y's
> conflict isn't something first-order like "X is mean to me, what do I
> do?" It is "X is threatening to do A to me if I don't do B." As A and B
> are units of dramatic meaning, the whole thing will feel different
> depending on A and B. (And yes, I do see a strong connection between
> higher-order events and higher-order subplots.)
> 
> By the way, my recent thinking is that X's action is focused on
> *creating the development*, as X's concern is not immediate, but the
> *result* of the development (X hopes that Y will do B). In other words,
> while it is fair to say that X's conflict has spawned the conflict
> between X and Y, it is also fair to say that initiating the new
> deveopment was an intentional action of X. I imagine that a lot of the
> time what players will do when playing a dream is intentionally kicking
> off developments-- which sounds quite a bit more interesting than just
> doing things for their immediate effect.
> 
>> The first conflict has spawned the second. The second exists in the context
>> of the first. The second might, in turn, go on to spawn others that exist in
>> its own more specific context. For example, the next crucial event might be
>> "Y goes to an old pal Z, who owes him a favor, and enlists his help in doing
>> B" (or killing X, or preventing A).
>> 
>> X's threat spreads or transfers conflict from X to Y. Y's subsequent action
>> transfers it to Z. Many dramatic mechanisms do that. Byock's schema from
>> _Feud in the Icelandic Saga_ has a whole category of "feduemes of
>> transference" that encompasses all such mechanisms occurring in the sagas.
>> Not to put too fine a point on it, this is the way plots thicken.

<etc.>

However, I need to spend some time thinking about all this before I can
contribute anything meaningful.

On a related note, I'm starting to noodle around with Shattertown and the
Erasmatron again.  Though my time will be severely limited, I'm still
committed to trying to have _something_ for Phrontisterion next summer.

(Maybe if my husband's book is made into a movie I can quit the day job long
enough to get some real work done; they're in discussions right now.
Hollywood is 99.9999% vapor-ware; still, it's fun to fantasize.... :)



-l.